Poll: Inspector rejects south Norfolk wind farm appeal

Pictured is what the view of Pulham would look like from Dickleburgh if the wind turbine proposal had been approved.

A renewable energy firm’s hopes of building three giant wind turbines in south Norfolk were dashed today when a planning inspector dismissed its appeal.

shares

Oxfordshire-based TCI Renewables appealed against South Norfolk Council’s decision in 2010 to refuse planning permission for three 126m high turbines at Upper Vaunces Farm between Rushall, Dickleburgh, Pulham Market and Pulham St Mary.

But in a report issued by inspector Zoe Hill today - following a lengthy inquiry - the proposals were refused on the grounds of impact on local residents and affect on the landscape and local listed buildings.

The applicants said the turbines would generate enough renewable energy to power about 3,500 homes.

The plans attracted almost 40 letters of support, but also received more than 400 letters of objection, as well as opposition from South Norfolk MP Richard Bacon, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, the Norfolk Gliding Club at Tibenham, two churches and six nearby parish councils.

South Norfolk MP Richard Bacon said today: “This decision is a victory for common sense. The inspector has clearly listened to strongly expressed local views and I am particularly pleased that she has recognised that the turbines’ impact on the gentle rural landscape in Rushall would be significant and harmful.

“St Mary’s Church in Rushall would have been overwhelmed by these turbines, and some residents would have had no escape from turbines towering over their homes.

“South Norfolk Council was right to reject these plans and the formidable 4Villages campaign group has worked extremely hard to protect local residents and see off these proposals.”

“In order to take proper advantage of the benefits of wind power we should continue to go off-shore, where it is much windier. It would then be possible to have large scale developments and big economies of scale, without the intrusion which this type of development on-shore will inevitably cause in a gentle rural landscape”.

See Tuesday’s EDP for more.

shares

49 comments

'Christine', fair comment about the incinerator. It was a decision based on EU bureaucratic falsehoods and not on the will of the local plebiscite.
Does not detract from the decision at Upper Vaunces. I calculated, based on South Norfolk average home annual consumption of 4.965 kWh and load factor 24% [slightly optimistic when considering DUKES 2012] that the proposal MIGHT intermittently supply only 2,500 and NOT 3,500 homes. This means the carbon dioxide savings, if there really is any, at an index of 0.27 tonnes per MWh of barely 3,400 tonnes, nothing like TCI claimed 7,000 tonnes. Read Page 2 of the National Planning Policy framework which requires "using sound science responsibly" to 'Achieve sustainable development' in the UK.

Norfolkboy, you appear to be ploughing a rather lonely furrow here. Sorry to add to your critics but you are still missing a few crucial facts. More wind power means more gas power stations as they are the only ones capable of responding in a timely fashion to the vagaries of wind power which can and does change rather rapidly. Running gas generators on an intermittent basis makes them more inefficient and costly to run. By the government's own admission, wind power will push up the cost of energy to consumers by a minimum of 30%. The cost of subsidy to wind farms is more than the cost of subsidising of building nuclear plants which produce far cheaper electricity and reliably so. As for runnning out of oil and gas, whilst we must not be complacent, at school in the sixties we were being told that oil would run out in the 1990s! Mind you, the concern then was that we were about to encounter the next mini ice age! How times change.

Norfolkboy15 - I really want to understand this. Ian, you still haven't explained the relationship between drag and power, in other words, why your formula for drag is analogous to the power generated. I can accept that higher wind speed and a larger turbine will produce more power - that seems self evident but what does that have to do with drag?

NB15
I thought I struggled with maths until you came along!
OK today, right now, according to gridwatch UK demand 39.85Gw, wind and others supplying 2.24Gw, 5.62%. Fine, no arguement with that, IF IT WAS A CONSTANT!. Last week UK demand 40.05Gw, wind and others 0.17Gw, 0.42%. So where the BH do you think the difference comes from, it wasn't dark in my house last week!! I would also, considerably question whether modern Nuclear is any more expensive, even including de-commisioning.

NB15
Here are some facts. The UK currently has installed wind powered generating capacity of 6858Mw, 6.85Gw, that's what it would generate in the ideal conditions. Today, a breezy day over most of the UK, right now, the total wind generation is 1.9Gw, I believe the record is 4Gw achieved just once. For a lot of last week it was 0.17Gw! The UK demand, right now is 40.05Gw, so, even on a windy day, and including all on and offshore installed wind, we achieve 4.74%. And you think Nuclear is expensive!! It's nice to think of all the options, indeed I have worked in 3 of them, but most are, at best, impractical. Tidal is very limited, extremely costly to both install and maintain, very few worthwhile sites, all far away from the main grid. Wave has potential but for useable amounts of power you'll need a HUGE amount of them, cost, again? Solar is undoubtedly the best renewable option, but again you need lots of it, and it really shouldn't be on food quality land. The same applies to Bio Gas. So, NOT sticking head in sand, being realistic!

Trev: Answer me this; what do you propose the future energy mix of the UK will look like? We certainly won't be in the front of the line for the dwindling oil & gas reserves that we do know. Nuclear? Who'll pay for the construction and decommissioning? Shale Gas? Will it ever meet the strict environmental criteria?
I've asked this question to many an anti-wind campaigner but yet to receive a sensible response!

Listen to all these NIMBY'S.
Yes Coal,Oil and Gas are running out in the next 30 years.(sorry not Coal the UK has 300 years worth left it's just we don't mine it) and the only reason the Windfarms are not producing enough is because of all you NIMBY'S trying to stop them being built.

Even after several decades of technical development, wind energy remains economically unviable. Thus, wind farms devour colossal amounts of public money leading to their dependence upon an artificial market for their very existence. Moreover, the excesses of this artificial market allow scandalous personal fortunes to be amassed at taxpayers' and consumers' expense with no ecological benefit. In fact, real damage is done;
Wind farms are significantly altering Europe's natural and cultural heritage by their harmful effect on landscapes and historic buildings. They have a severe impact on property values which for homeowners often represent the fruits of a lifetime of work;
Wind farms degrade the local residents' quality of life, even damaging the health of some;
wind farms imperil wildlife and destroy natural habitats which have hitherto escaped the destructive powers of earth-moving equipment, concreting operations and other highly invasive human activities.

Ian, since you are quoting formulae and not offering an explanation as to why they are relevant, I am tempted to assume that you do not understand the issue yourself despite your condescending remarks. Simply put (as you would say) the relationship between drag (or lift) and power is that power = force x distance moved divided by time taken. Apologies for the disingenuity but the socratic method usually reveals the frauds! p.s. there are only 2 'n's in inefficient.

Trevor S......Ohhh its getting to you then.
The only people that are getting worked up about this are the NIMBY'S.
You don't want Windfarms not for the reason's you suggest but for the reason you just don't want them. therfore why you are NIMBY'S

TWR
Please bear in mind I'm trying to give a simplified explanation here to try and make my point. Any aerofoil passing through an airflow will generate 2 things, lift, and drag, the two go together, you don't get one without the other. The blades on the rotor of any wind turbine are aerofoils, hence the aviation analogy. The way the blade uses the passing airflow creates lift to cause the blade to rotate, this in return causes drag to the airflow. I could just as easily have used the formula Lift equals the co-efficient of lift, times half the air density times the speed squared times the affected area, the result would be similar. The whole point of this exercise is to try and explain that wind turbines are both inefficient and huge. The efficiency can only be improved by increasing the rotor diameter (area) or increasing the windspeed. The latter is easier if you put them where the windspeed is higher, and more consistent, offshore. BTW. it's also much easier to build big ones offshore so offshore wins by a double whammy! This my last attempt at this, I have now lost the will to live!

TWR
Any object placed in an airflow will create drag, in exactly the ratio expressed by the formula. The drag formula therefore is a good analogy to use to show how the various parts in the formula affect the final figure. In this case it shows that 2 variables, affected area, and windspeed determine the amount of drag caused, or, in the case of a wind rotor, the amount of power available to be extracted from the airflow. It therefore explains why wind turbine have to be huge and also why they are innefective in light winds due to the square of the speed aspect.

Ingo, we do not want to be part-owners of politically scammed energy generation when we finance it by large subsidies and then are paid back as a pittance. Better invest our money in fossil fuel and nuclear as industries for the young employment of our OWN country. Look at the financial arrangements for both ROCs and FiTs. Nothing is gained except impoverishing our society with a political cash-cow enacted from that albatross the European Union. The money can only be spent once - it is NOT an either-or situation. Can we count the cost already with all the subsidy monies already salted away into foreign nationalised energy concerns? Because, for we realists, that is exactly what has happened because of the politically naive MPs of all persuasions. I mean, what twerps signed off the Climate Change Act?

Ian; I'm somewhat confused. It's OK for you to use sources of information to make your point. Yet, as soon as someone uses the same source to argue a different point, you question the maths?! Also, your attempts to question the intellectual capacity of those who have a contrasting view than yourself simply demonstrates that you actually can't efficiently back-up the science behind your argument.
It's obvious that both Andy and yourself simply want the last word as you grapple for attention on the soapbox.

Nuclear; who will pay for the construction? The country's broke Ian... it will cost BILLIONS. Also, who will pay for the clean-up and decommissioning? Obviously, that will also cost BILLIONS. As for on-going oil & gas exploration, yes it's still on-going but the dwindling reserves are in far more geographically challenging locations pushing up the cost of the commodity, which in turn is passed onto........us!
The UK has vast amounts of energy available whether it's tidal, wave, wind, solar and bio-gas. The fact that there is reluctance to make the most of this is criminal.
I understand that the oil & gas industry has provided plenty of work in the area in the past but we need to look ahead. We are no longer a nation with abundant fuel to burn. Burying our heads in the sand will just make the issue worse.

MickB1, do you deliberately miss the fundamental point behind all of this? You can erect 100,000 turbines, or a million turbines for that matter, but if they are not operating then they don't produce, so we will always require reliable power, i.e. of the current variety, to 100% of the nation's electricity demand.
I can't understand why the basic concept eludes you as you press on with this fantasy.
This graph, assuming the EDP allows it, shows where demand is quite high but wind output low or non-existent.

Andy and all those who have made reasoned arguments damining the great God windpower, sadly, if the 'believers' of the wind myth are still in evidence (there are still a few square earthers around too), the chances of getting them to understand even the most basic issues and mathematics is remote. I despair, I really do.

Hello andy, it's been a long time. I see you're still promoting the Daily Wail argument. Keep fighting! As for the dumpling and the one who's worked it out for himself I'd rather believe the maths of qualified professionals than that of someone who has a bigger chip on his shoulder than the one in his calculator. I'm sorry 15 but these people have a mental block whenever the idea of an energy mix is mentioned, it's commonly called prejudice.

Norfolkboy, what you and many others appear to fail to grasp is that if we build enough wind turbines to supply 30% of all electricity needs, given the current effectiveness of these machines we will need to build enough turbines to potentially produce 100% of our needs on a good day. Even 30% is above the effectiveness of any wind trubine with very few exceptions and way above onshore turbines. As it is not practical to stop and start other generators on a continuous basis, this means we will have to pay wind farm owners to not produce electricity! How can that be justified. No other energy source will need such a high percentage back up.
Incidentally, the government states that wind power costs more then fossil fuel or nuclear - where are you getting your figures from?

Ian, I was just wondering when you were going to tell us how the country will fund its next fleet of nuclear generators?
p.s. 5.42% of todays electricity is produced by wind, that's nearly a third of what is being produced by nuclear. At the fraction of the price of nuclear and without the mess afterwards. Good hey!

They clearly don't allow graphs.
By the way, I thought by now, with all of the sensible comments against wind energy you would have at least got past calling us NIMBY's, it really does show a lack of creativity in the name calling - I will try and think of a few more later that might help.
This might interest you: http:www.thegwpf.org800000-german-households-can-no-longer-pay-their-energy-bills

"norfolkboy15@gmail.com", it is not a victory for the "anti-groups", it is a HUGE victory for COMMON-SENSE.
If you are ashamed of coming from Norfolk the solution is in your own hands - leave.
We, as 60 year inhabitants, are proud of Norfolk and wish to keep it that way by forward progress, not backwards to obsolete technologies. So this appeal decision is superb.

Thank goodness. We dont want them, we cant afford them and they just cannot produce electricity when we need it and when they do it is so little for the costs involved. It is a scam on the British people that we are paying for in our bills. Look how much it is going up again to pay for all this.

NB15
Just a quick update, it's dark, and colder now so we need more energy to keep us lit and warm. So, as you'd expect, the UK demand has risen to 46.26Gw, pity then that the wind has dropped a bit and all of both on and offshore wind is now only producing 1.2Gw, just at the time when we need it most, that's a percentage drop to 2.59%. What a bloody stupid way to generate electricity!!!

Many congratulations to those who have fought this scheme, let us hope the tide is turning and the Government finally waking up to the fact that wind energy can never play a part in our energy strategy going forward.
The game of having to comply with EU requirements is masquerading as an energy policy is so clear I just don't understand why some still support it. Even Ingo, albeit in an odd way, has reservations.
People like MickB1 and Norfolk Boy15 have sadly fallen for it hook line and sinker.
Fortunately, their view, if you can call it a view, is now being exposed for what it is - a simplistic, uninformed and naive understanding.

Thoreauwasright; Don't concern yourself with it, Ian is obviously starved of the attention he so desperately needs that he craves the last word here. It's a trait you'll find with all the anti's; a craving for recognition.
If throwing spurious formulae around makes him feel justified in his argument then let him be.

A sweeping statement perhaps, but most of us in the so-called "anti" group are usually the more informed as to the subject. We have done the research and do so continuously. I'm not, by any means saying that all "pro" are ignorant, so don't think that, it's just that I see few reasoned arguments backed by calculations and facts coming from that sector. For example, how many monitor gridwatch each day and see what tiny contribution wind makes, especially as, recently, when it, for several days contributed less tha 0.3% of the UK needs, and that's ALL wind, on and offshore. The BBC news for NE Scotland today is quoting that oil and gas exploration is near an all time high. The real future is Nuclear FUSION, some way away, but getting closer, we'll have enough oil and gas until it is, and even if we didn't wind would certainly not fill the needs gap!

Trevor S......Ohhh its getting to you then.
The only people that are getting worked up about this are the NIMBY'S.
You don't want Windfarms not for the reason's you suggest but for the reason you just don't want them. therfore why you are NIMBY'S

Fantastic news, another considerable victory for common sense. Actually I am now coming round to the idea that every one of these things binned actually reduces both the cost of electricity (for all) but not paying the already rich landowner the subsidies, and reduces potential carbon emmisions but not needing the extra proper electricity generation back-up that these things need.. Hopefully the plans for Hempnall, Scottow and Blickling will meet the same fate!

NB15
You are correct, you are confused! let's try some different maths then.
The aviation formula to calculate drag of an aerofoil is a good way of understanding the power available in an airflow (wind) In this case the aerofoil becomes the turbine disc.
I don't know how well this webpage will display this so I'll elongate it a bit. The formula is....Drag equals the coefficient of Drag times half the air density times the airspeed SQUARED times the area. All in old fashioned pounds and feet etc. In reality, there are only two variables, the air density at sea level is more or less constant, as is the co-efficient of drag of the rotor. The only variables then are the area of the rotor and the windspeed, SQUARED. The area of the rotor is determined by the turbine designer (they are always massive because they have to be, this is such an innefficient way of converting one form of energy into another) So, the output of any wind turbine is a function of the windspeed, nothing else. No wind, no output. The RATED speed of most ( the speed of the airflow which makes the thing develop what it says on the data sheet) is usually 31mph, 45feet per second, 13.8metres per second. The DECC average airflow over the vast majority of Norfolk is 6.3 Metres per second. Remember the SQUARED function of the airspeed, halve the airspeed, QUARTER the turbine output. That, in a nutshell is why ONSHORE wind doesn't work and OFFSHORE wind does, as it's actually windier offshore!!

A victory for stupidity, shame R Bacon doesn't look at a landscape blighted by agriculture in the same way he looks at free energy. Large turbones are far safer for birds, bats and more power productive than micro turbines, so in our area where all the older generation oppose large turbines, there are applications going in all around me for micro turbines which will be solely for the land owners benefit and more dangerous to ducks, bats, barn owls, swallows with Windcrop footing the bill and taking the hassle of planning applications, my most disliked area of the council, planning, the people who want the micro ones are trying to cash in on an 'investment fund' as are Windcrop. So hundreds of micro turbines are better than a few large ones? In case anyone is struggling, the answer is no. The younger generation that will have to live with these for the majority of their lives do want them, the older generation who are at the other end of their lives don't want them, who should get what they want? In case anyone is struggling again, the younger generations who are more open minded should. Or side with Bacon who's political flyer showed a wind turbine chopping out the back of a hill, nice photoshop work there to do a bit more scaremongering, using a photo of alien crops in an alien landscape to argue that turbines are alien, it's all blasted alien!

Onshore wind power is not "Progress", it is the biggest scam on the general public for years. I was all for windpower a few years ago, i was even pleased when "Gulliver" was erected in my home town of Lowestoft. Now that i can see with my own eyes, that it only works for about 15% of the time, i have realised that i do not want to be in the dark fior 85% of my life

Sad news indeed, once again a victory for the anti-groups. I think the turbines would've made what is a rather mundane piece of countryside better. Although I'm hardly surprised to see the local Tory Trotter putting in his money worth.
It's this resistance to progress that makes me ashamed to come from Norfolk, this county really is strife with ignorance.

Many congratulations to those who have fought this scheme, let us hope the tide is turning and the Government finally waking up to the fact that wind energy can never play a part in our energy strategy going forward.
The game of having to comply with EU requirements is masquerading as an energy policy is so clear I just don't understand why some still support it. Even Ingo, albeit in an odd way, has reservations.
People like MickB1 and Norfolk Boy15 have sadly fallen for it hook line and sinker.
Fortunately, their view, if you can call it a view, is now being exposed for what it is - a simplistic, uninformed and naive understanding.

TS
I can only agree. I personally, have tried to explain with even the most basic mathematics, facts, references to Gridwatch etc etc and all seems to be ignored, or, more likely, not understood!
Thoreauwaswrong (again) says it's all prejudice! MickB1 want's to cover the planet with turbines then completely doesn't understand that if the planet IS covered and its not windy, then you still have no electricity! Please look down to my posts last night based on observations from Gridwatch, all perfectly correct and from a provable source, also, all ignored.
I will continue to fight this, my aim is that there are no more in N Norfolk, but, like you, I despair!!

Hello again "norfolkboy15@gmail.com". Fairly or unfairly, because of the frequency you inhabit these columns and make inane comments, I have come to the conclusion that you must be a paid troll of Action4Renewables or some such organisation. Suggest you take a serious read of what 'DaveG' has written - he worked it out for himself which puts him quite a definite cut above your renewables religious beliefs.
It makes you the ignorant troll so make way for people who wish to sensibly discuss the situation. It could be different if you provided evidence to back up what you assert instead of the hollow rhetoric you keep re-gurgitating.

Well said, 'TrevorS', 'Sayitasitis', 'Peter Moncrieff'.
Just to answer "norfolkboy15@gmail.com", the mainline future secure energy mix will quite adequately be as it has been for the past 70 years and that is fossil fuels [coal, gas, oil and shale gas] with, if the Government can get its finger out from the antiquated thinking and tinkering during the last 25 years ago, a full BRITISH-BUILT fleet of nuclear [including thorium] power stations. {See France and EDF as the prime example}.
There is absolutely no need or case for trivially low energy density disproportionately-subsidised obsolete fuels like renewables and that includes water-based technologies as well. Water has 100,000 times less releasable energy density per kilogramme than coal which, kilogramme for kilogramme is 1,000,000 times less than nuclear. So, "norfolkboy15" take a long hard look at how your electricity is sourced and why stochastic intermittent renewables are wasting our financial resources and have no place in the porfolio.

Oh Dumpy, why do you feel so compelled to get just downright nasty in your responses? Luckily for you I can see you're only being tongue in cheek! Also, just because someone has a different opinion to you it does not constitute being a troll! Good job I see the funny side! ha.
Wind energy is here and WILL play it's part in the looming energy mix. We ARE a net importer of fossil fuels and are at the mercy of the Middle East and Russia for our energy. Nuclear is a financial non-starter so we have to utilise our natural resources and that inlcudes wind! Good hey?!
I can't wait to see Norfolk producing it's own sustainable energy, it's going to be awesome!

What a shame some people are standing in the way of progress.
The Onshore windfarm poll on this site at the moment says it all and the true feeling of what we want in Norfolk..
Is there a place for onshore wind development in rural Norfolk?
48% say YES
40% say No
12% say Maybe
There is the TRUE answer..!
Say YES to Windfarms...!

I don't understand why the 'back-up power' argument continues to be tossed around by the anti-sector. ALL POWER PRODUCING INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRES BACK-UP! What do you think happens when a nuclear power station is shut-down for maintenance?
You appear to be missing the key underlying argument here; that wind-power will play a part in the forthcoming energy mix. We are certainly not saying that wind should be the sole source of electricity but should be part of a sustainable portfolio.
Andy; your argument that nuclear would cost less than building wind farm projects really did make me laugh, are you actually serious!!? I assume you've factored in the costs of decommissioning and dealing with the by-products? If so, I'd love to see your maths.

Norfolkboy15
Future energy mix? Some nuclear ... (and before you say it - I lived for twenty five years directly upwind of TWO nuclear power stations). Significant amounts of gas - most likely shale gas because I do not believe (having read the origins) the scare stories put about. Some cleaner burning coal-fired stations (such as Germany are having to build following the failure of their 'renewables'). Some undersea tidal (NOT wave energy) provided by proper engineers such as Rolls Royce and Kawasaki. Some geothermal - if we divert massive subsidies away from the wind lobby brigade and their hopeless kit.
Yes we will have to pay for build and decommission of nuclear (just as we have done in the past) but, unlike windmills which are exporting £billions to overseas companies, much of this money is likely to circulate within the UK economy IF Government plans things properly. The windmill plan was driven by self-interested 'developers' with unfettered access behind the scenes to gullible civil servants and grand-standing politicians who thought being seen to be "green" was a good idea ...
It was NOT driven by qualified engineers or sound economics.
It is the 21st Century South Sea Bubble.
Well done the Planning Inspectorate on yet another victory for common sense.

Allowing himself to be quoted thus as in the last paragraph of this article, even Richard Bacon has his "knickers-in-a-twist" in the respect that he is proposing Offshore wind turbines with his zilch knowledge of the offshore marine environment and zilch knowledge of electricity generation. Typical of technically ignorant politicians he is trying to hedge his bets and perch on the economist's fence, without listening to real engineering knowledge. The offshore environment is a catastrophe waiting to happen for our secure electricity generation system. Needless to say he voted for the Climate Change Act. There is NO place for an obsolete technology in the modern world of electricity generation.